DETAILED ACTION
The amendments filed 12/15/2025 have been entered. Claims 1-10 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, and 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Namiki et al. (US Publication No. 2018/0194008).
Namiki teaches:
Re claim 1. A robot control device comprising a controller configured to control a robot (visual sensor controller 1 and robot controller 3, Fig. 1),
the controller configured to
obtain an actual visual field size of an image capture device configured to capture an image of an operating space of the robot (paragraph [0078]: “Coordinate values in the image range in the image coordinate system at the camera 2 (boundary positions including four corners, for example) are calculated in advance.”);
obtain space information of the image capture device (paragraph [0070]: “The first image range setting unit 105 may set the image entirely as the image range. If space for move of the target mark 5 includes an obstacle, for example, the first image range setting unit 105 may limit the image range in response to an instruction from the operator so as to avoid the obstacle existing in the view of the camera 2.”);
set a predetermined first position based on the actual visual field size and the space information (S15, Fig. 8A; and paragraph [0078]: “In step S15, based on the association calculated in step S14, the first calibration range measurement unit 106 calculates and sets the magnitude and the direction (V) of the stroke in the robot coordinate system from the initial position on the plane corresponding to the magnitude and the direction (v) of the stroke in the image coordinate system at the camera 2 from the initial position to a boundary position (corner, for example) in the image coordinate system at the camera 2.”); and
generate one or more candidate positions of a calibration position of the robot based on the first position and the actual visual field size (S15-S20, Fig. 8A; and paragraphs [0078-0083]).
Re claim 2. The robot control device according to claim 1,
wherein the controller is further configured to
calculate a state of the robot on an assumption that the robot is moved to each of the one or more candidate positions of the calibration position (S20, Fig. 8A; S35, Fig. 10; and paragraphs [0083 and 0096]);
determine, for each of the one or more candidate positions, whether a calibration of the robot can be executed (S17, S18, and S21, Fig. 8A; and S39 and S41, Fig. 10); and
generate the calibration position of the robot based on determination result of whether the calibration of the robot can be executed (S20, Fig. 8A).
Re claim 4. A robot control system comprising:
the robot control device according to claim 1 (Figs. 1, 8A and 10),
the robot (robot 4, Fig. 1), and
the image capture device (camera 2, Fig. 1).
Re claim 5. A robot control method comprising:
obtaining an actual visual field size of an image capture device configured to capture an image of an operating space of the robot;
obtaining space information of the image captured by the image capture device (paragraph [0070]: “The first image range setting unit 105 may set the image entirely as the image range. If space for move of the target mark 5 includes an obstacle, for example, the first image range setting unit 105 may limit the image range in response to an instruction from the operator so as to avoid the obstacle existing in the view of the camera 2.”; and paragraph [0078]: “Coordinate values in the image range in the image coordinate system at the camera 2 (boundary positions including four corners, for example) are calculated in advance.”);
setting a predetermined first position based on the actual visual field size and the image (S15, Fig. 8A; and paragraph [0078]: “In step S15, based on the association calculated in step S14, the first calibration range measurement unit 106 calculates and sets the magnitude and the direction (V) of the stroke in the robot coordinate system from the initial position on the plane corresponding to the magnitude and the direction (v) of the stroke in the image coordinate system at the camera 2 from the initial position to a boundary position (corner, for example) in the image coordinate system at the camera 2.”); and
generating one or more candidate positions of a calibration position of the robot based on the first position and the actual visual field size (S15-S20, Fig. 8A; and paragraphs [0078-0083]).
Re claim 6. Further comprising:
calculating a state of the robot on an assumption that the robot is moved to each of the one or more candidate positions of the calibration position (S20, Fig. 8A; S35, Fig. 10; and paragraphs [0083 and 0096]);
determining, for each of the one or more candidate positions, whether a calibration of the robot can be executed (S17, S18, and S21, Fig. 8A; and S39 and S41, Fig. 10); and
generating the calibration position of the robot based on determination result of whether the calibration of the robot can be executed (S20, Fig. 8A).
Re claim 7. wherein, the image capture device comprises at least one of a camera, a 3D stereo camera, and a LiDAR (camera 2, Fig. 1).
Re claim 8. Wherein, the image capture device comprises at least one of a camera, a 3D stereo camera, and a LiDAR (camera 2, Fig. 1).
Re claim 9. Wherein the space information includes depth information of an object present in the operating space (paragraph [0111]).
Re claim 10. Wherein the space information includes depth information of an object present in the operating space (paragraph [0111]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Namiki et al. (US Publication No. 2018/0194008) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dariush et al. (US Publication No. 2009/0074252).
The teachings of Namiki have been discussed above. Namiki further teaches:
Re claim 3. The robot control device according to claim 1,
wherein the controller is further configured to
calculate a position of an object present in the operating space based on the actual visual field size and the space information (paragraph [0070]: “The first image range setting unit 105 may set the image entirely as the image range. If space for move of the target mark 5 includes an obstacle, for example, the first image range setting unit 105 may limit the image range in response to an instruction from the operator so as to avoid the obstacle existing in the view of the camera 2. In this case, the first image range setting unit 105 may designate the image range as a closed graphic drawn with multiple line segments.”); and
move the robot to the calibration position (move target mark S16, Fig. 8A).
Namiki fails to specifically teach: (re claim 3) The robot control device according to claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to move the robot to the calibration position when the robot is in a state of not being in contact with the object present in the operating space, a state of not being on an outer side of a joint movable range, and a state of not being at a singularity.
Dariush teaches, at paragraph [0024], generating motions for a robot system while preventing the system from violating physical limits, such as joint limits, and avoiding obstacles and singularities. This ensures such robots stay within their work envelope without colliding with obstacles or encountering computational problems near singularities.
In view of Dariush’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the device as taught by Namiki, (re claim 3) The robot control device according to claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to move the robot to the calibration position when the robot is in a state of not being in contact with the object present in the operating space, a state of not being on an outer side of a joint movable range, and a state of not being at a singularity, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Dariush teaches generating motions for a robot system while preventing the system from violating physical limits, such as joint limits, and avoiding obstacles and singularities. This ensures such robots stay within their work envelope without colliding with obstacles or encountering computational problems near singularities.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 5, filed 12/15/2025, with respect to the objection to claim 3, the 35 USC § 112(f) interpretation of claims 1-5, and the 35 USC § 112(b) rejection of claims 1-4 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to claim 3, the 35 USC § 112(f) interpretation of claims 1-5, and the 35 USC § 112(b) rejection of claims 1-4 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant remarks, on page 7:
Namiki does not disclose generating one or more candidate positions of a calibration position of the robot based on the first position and the actual visual field size. Instead, Namiki discloses a calibration device that associates a robot coordinate system at a robot and an image coordinate system at a camera by placing a target mark on the robot, moving the robot, and detecting the target mark at multiple points in a view of the camera. Namiki also discloses a calibration range measurement unit that measures an operation range for the robot corresponding to the image range before implementation of calibration by moving the robot and detecting the target mark. Importantly, Namiki's calibration range measurement unit moves the target mark by moving the robot, then determines through the first detection unit whether or not the target mark is detectable. If the target mark is not detectable, Namiki moves the robot and tries to detect the target mark again.
In contrast, amended claim 1 requires generating candidate positions for the calibration position computationally, based on the first position and actual visual field size, rather than through iterative physical movement or the robot and detection of the target mark.
Namiki does not disclose or suggest generating candidate positions through such computational determination. Instead Namiki determines whether or not the target mark is detectable in the image range by physically moving the target mark (by moving the robot) and detecting the target mark repeatedly, thereby measuring the calibration range.
However, Namiki teaches “generate one or more candidate positions of a calibration position of the robot based on the first position and the actual visual field size” at Fig. 8A and the associated disclosure. Namiki “set[s] a predetermined first position based on the actual visual field size and the space information” at S15, Fig. 8 and paragraph [0078] at which a position in the robot coordinate system is determined based on a boundary position in the image coordinate system. Namiki further “generate[s] one or more candidate positions of a calibration position of the robot based on the first position and the actual visual field size” at S16-S20, Fig. 8 and paragraphs [0079-0083]. The system of Namiki detects a target mark (which has been moved “based on the first position and the actual visual field size” at S15-S16) at S17, and determines if the target mark is sufficiently close to a boundary position at S18. The detected position of the target mark is a “candidate position of a calibration position” as the system is determining whether or not the detected position will be used for calibration at S20-S21. The detected position of the target mark will not be used if it is not sufficiently close to the boundary position (S18, no), and will be used if it is sufficiently close to the boundary position at S20 (S18, yes). This determination at S18 is based on “the actual visual field size” as the location of the target mark in the image coordinate system is being compared to the boundary position in the image coordinate system of the camera; and also because the “first position” set at S15 and moved to at S16 is based on the “actual visual field size” at S15.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SPENCER D PATTON whose telephone number is (571)270-5771. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9:00-5:00 ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Khoi Tran can be reached at (571)272-6919. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SPENCER D PATTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656